External validation of novel magnetic resonance imaging-based models for prostate cancer prediction.
#PCSM
#ProstateCancer
European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer
biopsy
diagnostic imaging
magnetic resonance imaging
Journal
BJU international
ISSN: 1464-410X
Titre abrégé: BJU Int
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100886721
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
03 2020
03 2020
Historique:
pubmed:
24
11
2019
medline:
31
7
2020
entrez:
24
11
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
To validate, in an external cohort, three novel risk models, including the recently updated European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) risk calculator, that combine multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) and clinical variables to predict clinically significant prostate cancer (PCa). We retrospectively analysed 307 men who underwent mpMRI prior to transperineal ultrasound fusion biopsy between October 2015 and July 2018 at two German centres. mpMRI was rated by Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) v2.0 and clinically significant PCa was defined as International Society of Urological Pathology Gleason grade group ≥2. The prediction performance of the three models (MRI-ERSPC-3/4, and two risk models published by Radtke et al. and Distler et al., ModRad and ModDis) were compared using receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curve analyses, with area under the ROC curve (AUC), calibration curve analyses and decision curves used to assess net benefit. The AUCs of the three novel models (MRI-ERSPC-3/4, ModRad and ModDis) were 0.82, 0.85 and 0.83, respectively. Calibration curve analyses showed the best intercept for MRI-ERSPC-3 and -4 of 0.35 and 0.76. Net benefit analyses indicated clear benefit of the MRI-ERSPC-3/4 risk models compared with the other two validated models. The MRI-ERSPC-3/4 risk models demonstrated a discrimination benefit for a risk threshold of up to 15% for clinically significant PCa as compared to the other risk models. In our external validation of three novel prostate cancer risk models, which incorporate mpMRI findings, a head-to-head comparison indicated that the MRI-ERSPC-3/4 risk model in particular could help to reduce unnecessary biopsies.
Types de publication
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Validation Study
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
407-416Commentaires et corrections
Type : CommentIn
Informations de copyright
© 2019 The Authors BJU International © 2019 BJU International Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Références
Moldovan PC, van den Broeck T, Sylvester R et al. What is the negative predictive value of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in excluding prostate cancer at biopsy? A systematic review and meta-analysis from the European Association of Urology Prostate Cancer Guidelines Panel. Eur Urol 2017; 72: 250-66
Mottet N, van den Bergh RCN, Briers E et al. European Association of Urology Guidelines. 2018 Edition - Update March 2019: EAU - ESTRO - ESUR - SIOG Guidelines on Prostate Cancer 2018, presented at the EAU Annual Congress Copenhagen 2018: European Association of Urology Guidelines Office, 2018
Drost F-JH, Osses DF, Nieboer D et al. Prostate MRI, with or without MRI-targeted biopsy, and systematic biopsy for detecting prostate cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2019; 4: CD012663
Greer MD, Brown AM, Shih JH et al. Accuracy and agreement of PIRADSv2 for prostate cancer mpMRI: a multireader study. J Magn Reson Imaging 2017; 45: 579-85
Ahmed HU, El-Shater Bosaily A, Brown LC et al. Diagnostic accuracy of multi-parametric MRI and TRUS biopsy in prostate cancer (PROMIS): a paired validating confirmatory study. Lancet 2017; 389: 815-22
Ahmed HU, Hu Y, Carter T et al. Characterizing clinically significant prostate cancer using template prostate mapping biopsy. J Urol 2011; 186: 458-64
Filson CP, Natarajan S, Margolis DJA et al. Prostate cancer detection with magnetic resonance-ultrasound fusion biopsy: the role of systematic and targeted biopsies. Cancer 2016; 122: 884-92
Mendhiratta N, Meng X, Rosenkrantz AB et al. Prebiopsy MRI and MRI-ultrasound fusion-targeted prostate biopsy in men with previous negative biopsies: impact on repeat biopsy strategies. Urology 2015; 86: 1192-99
Panebianco V, Barchetti F, Sciarra A et al. Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging vs. standard care in men being evaluated for prostate cancer: a randomized study. Urol Oncol 2015; 33: 17.e1-.e7
Pokorny MR, de Rooij M, Duncan E et al. Prospective study of diagnostic accuracy comparing prostate cancer detection by transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy versus magnetic resonance (MR) imaging with subsequent MR-guided biopsy in men without previous prostate biopsies. Eur Urol 2014; 66: 22-9
Siddiqui MM, Rais-Bahrami S, Turkbey B et al. Comparison of MR/ultrasound fusion-guided biopsy with ultrasound-guided biopsy for the diagnosis of prostate cancer. JAMA 2015; 313: 390-97
Valerio M, Donaldson I, Emberton M et al. Detection of clinically significant prostate cancer using magnetic resonance imaging-ultrasound fusion targeted biopsy: a systematic review. Eur Urol 2015; 68: 8-19
van der Leest M, Cornel E, Israël B et al. Head-to-head comparison of transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy versus multiparametric prostate resonance imaging with subsequent magnetic resonance-guided biopsy in biopsy-naïve men with elevated prostate-specific antigen: a large prospective multicenter clinical study. Eur Urol 2019; 75: 570-8
Rouvière O, Puech P, Renard-Penna R et al. Use of prostate systematic and targeted biopsy on the basis of multiparametric MRI in biopsy-naive patients (MRI-FIRST): a prospective, multicentre, paired diagnostic study. Lancet Oncol 2019; 20: 100-9
Kasivisvanathan V, Rannikko AS, Borghi M et al. MRI-targeted or standard biopsy for prostate-cancer diagnosis. N Engl J Med 2018; 378: 1767-77
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidance - prostate cancer: diagnosis and management: © NICE (2019) prostate cancer: diagnosis and management. BJU Int 2019; 124: 9-26
Gayet M, Mannaerts CK, Nieboer D et al. Prediction of prostate cancer: external validation of the ERSPC risk calculator in a contemporary Dutch clinical cohort. Eur Urol Focus 2018; 4: 228-34
Louie KS, Seigneurin A, Cathcart P, Sasieni P. Do prostate cancer risk models improve the predictive accuracy of PSA screening? A meta-analysis. Ann Oncol 2015; 26: 848-64
Roobol MJ, Schröder FH, Hugosson J et al. Importance of prostate volume in the European Randomised Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) risk calculators: results from the prostate biopsy collaborative group. World J Urol 2012; 30: 149-55
Roobol MJ, Steyerberg EW, Kranse R et al. A risk-based strategy improves prostate-specific antigen-driven detection of prostate cancer. Eur. Urol 2010; 57: 79-85
Trottier G, Roobol MJ, Lawrentschuk N et al. Comparison of risk calculators from the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial and the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer in a contemporary Canadian cohort. BJU Int. 2011; 108(8 Pt 2): E237-44
van Vugt HA, Kranse R, Steyerberg EW et al. Prospective validation of a risk calculator which calculates the probability of a positive prostate biopsy in a contemporary clinical cohort. Eur J Cancer 2012; 48: 1809-15
van Vugt HA, Roobol MJ, Busstra M et al. Compliance with biopsy recommendations of a prostate cancer risk calculator. BJU Int 2012; 109: 1480-88
van Vugt HA, Roobol MJ, Kranse R et al. Prediction of prostate cancer in unscreened men: external validation of a risk calculator. Eur J Cancer 2011; 47: 903-9
Zhu X, Albertsen PC, Andriole GL, Roobol MJ, Schröder FH, Vickers AJ. Risk-based prostate cancer screening. Eur Urol 2012; 61: 652-61
Distler FA, Radtke JP, Bonekamp D et al. The value of PSA density in combination with PI-RADS™ for the accuracy of prostate cancer prediction. J Urol 2017; 198: 575-82
Radtke JP, Wiesenfarth M, Kesch C et al. Combined clinical parameters and multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging for advanced risk modeling of prostate cancer-patient-tailored risk stratification can reduce unnecessary biopsies. Eur Urol 2017; 72: 888-96
Alberts AR, Roobol MJ, Verbeek JFM et al. Prediction of high-grade prostate cancer following multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging: improving the Rotterdam European randomized study of screening for prostate cancer risk calculators. Eur Urol 2019; 75: 310-8
Radtke JP, Schwab C, Wolf MB et al. Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and MRI-transrectal ultrasound fusion biopsy for index tumor detection: correlation with radical prostatectomy specimen. Eur Urol 2016; 70: 846-53
Weinreb JC, Barentsz JO, Choyke PL et al. PI-RADS prostate imaging - reporting and data system: 2015, version 2. Eur Urol 2016; 69: 16-40
Kuru TH, Wadhwa K, Chang RTM et al. Definitions of terms, processes and a minimum dataset for transperineal prostate biopsies: a standardization approach of the Ginsburg Study Group for Enhanced Prostate Diagnostics. BJU Int 2013; 112: 568-77
Hadaschik BA, Kuru TH, Tulea C et al. A novel stereotactic prostate biopsy system integrating pre-interventional magnetic resonance imaging and live ultrasound fusion. J Urol 2011; 186: 2214-20
Epstein JI, Allsbrook WCJR, Amin MB, Egevad LL. The 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) consensus conference on Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol 2005; 29: 1228-42
SWOP - The Prostate Cancer Research Foundation, Oostvoorne. Medical Source data - SWOP - The Prostate Cancer Research Foundation, Oostvoorne. Available at: http://www.prostatecancer-riskcalculator.com/medical-source-data-2. Accessed December 2018
Vickers AJ, Elkin EB. Decision curve analysis: a novel method for evaluating prediction models. Med Decis Making 2006; 26: 565-74
Kerr KF, Brown MD, Zhu K, Janes H. Assessing the clinical impact of risk prediction models with decision curves: guidance for correct interpretation and appropriate use. J Clin Oncol 2016; 34: 2534-40
van Calster B, Wynants L, Verbeek JFM et al. Reporting and interpreting decision curve analysis: a guide for investigators. Eur Urol 2018; 74: 796-804
Moore CM, Kasivisvanathan V, Eggener S et al. Standards of reporting for MRI-targeted biopsy studies (START) of the prostate: recommendations from an International Working Group. Eur Urol 2013; 64: 544-52
Mehralivand S, Shih JH, Rais-Bahrami S et al. A magnetic resonance imaging-based prediction model for prostate biopsy risk stratification. JAMA Oncol 2018; 4: 678-85
van Leeuwen PJ, Hayen A, Thompson JE et al. A multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging-based risk model to determine the risk of significant prostate cancer prior to biopsy. BJU Int 2017; 120: 774-81
Woo S, Suh CH, Kim SY, Cho JY, Kim SH. Diagnostic performance of prostate imaging reporting and data system version 2 for detection of prostate cancer: a systematic review and diagnostic meta-analysis. Eur Urol 2017; 72: 177-88